United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Prevention, Pesticides, And Toxic Substances (7501C) EPA 735-B-93-005b February 1994 &EPA Review, Approval, and Evaluation of State Management Plans Appendix A Appendix to the Guidance for Pesticides and Ground Water State Management Plans Recycled/Recyclable Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper that contains at least 50% recycled fiber ------- Review, Approval, and Evaluation of State Management Plans Appendix A IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENT FOR THE PESTICIDES AND GROUND WATER STRATEGY vvEPA UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS ------- Contents Chapter Page 1 Introduction 1-1 1.1 Overview of Generic and Pesticide State Management Plans (SMPs) 1-1 1.2 Generic State Management Plans (SMPs) 1-1 1.3 Pesticide State Management Plans 1-3 1.4 Legal Framework for State Management Plans 1-3 1.5 Pesticide SMP Regulations 1-5 1.6 SMP Review Approach 1-5 1.7 SMP Implementation and Oversight Approach 1-5 1.8 Roadmap of Appendix A 1-7 2 Overview of Review Process for State Management Plans 2-1 3 Review of State Management Plans for Completeness 3-1 3.1 Who Does the Completeness Review? 3-1 3.2 What is the Time Frame of the Completeness Review? 3-1 3.3 What Are the Procedures for the Completeness Review? 3-1 4 Review of State Management Plans for Content 4-1 4.1 Who Does the Content Review? 4-1 4.2 What Is the Time Frame for the Content Review? 4-3 4.3 What Are the Procedures for the Content Review? 4-3 4.4 Consistency with Conservation Compliance Plans (Pesticide SMPs only) 4-4 5 Evaluation of State Management Plan Implementation 5-1 5.1 Pesticide SMP Biennial Report 5-1 5.2 Pesticide SMP Biennial Report - Programmatic Evaluation 5-2 5.3 Pesticide SMP Biennial Report - Environmental Evaluation 5-3 5.4 Pesticide SMP Biennial Report Evaluation Process 5-3 5.5 Roles and Responsibilities for Evaluating Pesticide SMPs 5-4 5.6 Summary of Evaluation Outcomes 5-7 5.7 Submittal of Monitoring Data to the EPA Pesticides in Ground Water Data Base 5-8 Page i ------- Contents (continued) Chapter Page 6 Updating State Management Plans 6-1 6.1 The SMP Update 6-2 6.2 The SMP Updating Process 6-2 6.3 Roles and Responsibilities for Updating SMPs 6-2 7 Withdrawal of Approval for a Pesticide State Management Plan 7-1 7.1 The Withdrawal Process 7-1 7.2 Roles and Responsibilities for Withdrawing Pesticide SMP Approval 7-2 Page ii ------- List of Tables Table Page 1 Key Participants in SMP Review and Approval Process 2-3 2 Responsibilities for Review and Approval Process 2-4 List of Figures Figure Page 1 Sources of Guidance on SMPs 1-4 2 SMP Process 1-6 3 Review and Approval Process for Pesticide SMPs 2-2 4 Regional Completeness Review Process for SMPs 3-2 5 Regional Content Review Process for Pesticide SMPs 4-2 6 Evaluation of Pesticide SMPs 5-5 7 Data Elements for the Pesticides in Ground Water Data Base 5-9 8 Update Process for Pesticide SMPs 6-3 9 Withdrawal Process for Pesticide SMPs 7-3 Page iii ------- Chapter 1 Chapter 1 Introduction This Appendix (Appendix A) to the Guidance for Pesticides and Ground Water State Management Plans provides the procedures and time frames for EPA's review, approval/concurrence, and evaluation of State Management Plans (SMPs). Specifically, it describes a two-step review process and the roles and responsibilities of the Regions and States. It also contains biennial review procedures for evaluating the implementation of SMPs to determine whether a State is successfully protecting its ground water resources from pesticide contamination. In addition, this Appendix presents methods for States to update their SMPs, should this become necessary. Finally, it outlines the conditions that might lead to withdrawal of approval for a Pesticide SMP and procedures for States to prevent or remedy such a withdrawal. Appendix A represents EPA guidance to States on the review, approval, and evaluation of Generic and Pesticide SMPs. Some of this information will also be proposed for public comment in an upcoming regulation specifying pesticides for which a Pesticide SMP will be required. This guidance document does not establish a binding norm -- Agency decisions to approve or disapprove Pesticide SMPs will be made on a case-by-case basis by applying the regulation to the specific facts of the case. 1.1 Overview of Generic and Pesticide State Management Plans (SMPs) There are two types of SMPs: Generic SMPs that address the SMP components in generalized terms and Pesticide SMPs that address specific pesticides. Both types of SMPs consist of twelve components that must be addressed to varying degrees to reflect the degree of risk represented by the differences in aquifer sensitivity, pesticide use, and agronomic practices in a particular State. The components of SMPs are discussed in detail in the Guidance for Pesticides and Ground Water State Management Plans (see Chapter 3). 1.2 Generic State Management Plans (SMPs) States are strongly encouraged to take the initiative voluntarily in the development of Generic SMPs even before EPA requires Pesticide SMPs through a chemical-specific regulatory action. In addition, FIFRA ground water-related and CWA Section 106 (ground water) grant funds are available to support activities to develop a Generic SMP (requirements for FIFRA grant funds are described in the Agency document Consolidated Pesticide Cooperative Agreement Guidance, issued annually by the Office of Pesticide Programs). EPA acknowledges that development of Pesticide SMPs initially will be time- and resource-intensive. Therefore, EPA encourages States to begin developing a Generic Page 1-1 ------- Chapter 1 SMP prior to identification of a specific pesticide of concern. A Generic SMP should assist the State in preparing for the eventuality that SMPs are required for specific pesticides of concern. EPA believes that certain aspects of each SMP component will be generic within a State regardless of the specific pesticide in question. Under a Generic SMP, a State will address all SMP components, but will cover those elements in generalized terms that are not specific to a particular pesticide. For example, the Generic SMP could describe fully the State's general philosophy and goals toward protection of ground water; describe fully the various agencies and entities involved in SMP implementation and their responsibilities for carrying out the SMP, including coordination mechanisms; and set forth a detailed scheme of varying degrees of preventive measures, educational efforts, and pesticide use and agronomic practices the State may employ in a Pesticide SMP. The Generic Plan should also give schedules and milestones. Moreover, the Generic SMP needs to go beyond a planning document. States should use the Generic SMP to put in place the resources and coordinating mechanisms that will be required to develop and implement a Pesticide SMP. A Generic SMP, for example, might provide the State's program and time frame for mapping its ground water resources and even describe their basic operations; a Pesticide SMP would require the mapping program to be in operation. EPA does not intend to require that Generic SMPs be submitted for concurrence. However, EPA strongly encourages States to seek EPA review, comment, and concurrence on their Generic SMPs. .This will not only facilitate EPA's review of future Pesticide SMPs, but will also ensure that States have adequate time to develop the pesticide-specific information within the time allowed once a pesticide is identified as requiring an approved Pesticide SMP for continued use. If a State is required to have an approved Pesticide SMP and fails to gain approval, legal sale and use of that pesticide within the State will not be permitted. Thus, to assist in ensuring the continued availability of a pesticide of concern, EPA encourages States to develop Generic SMPs prior to the need for a Pesticide SMP. Finally, development of Generic SMPs will complement the overall Ground Water Protection Principles and their objective of implementing Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs (CSGWPPs) because many of the components that would be adequately addressed in a Generic SMP are activities that also need to be defined within the context of a CSGWPP. The Agency believes that developing coordination mechanisms within the States, outlining responsibilities and authorities, and working with the Agency toward an acceptable SMP will accomplish two critical objectives: (1) it will improve a State's institutional framework for coordinating all ground water activities (i.e., program enforcement, ground water classification/mapping, monitoring, etc.), which will better prepare the States to focus prevention and source reduction measures on areas of ground water vulnerability and high use and value; and (2) it will build the relationships necessary to comprehensively manage ground water as a resource within the States and between the States and federal government. Page 1-2 ------- Chapter 1 1.3 Pesticide State Management Plans EPA will invoke the SMP approach for a specific chemical if: (1) the Agency concludes from the evidence of a chemical's contamination potential that the pesticide "may cause unreasonable adverse effects to human health or the environment" in the absence of effective local management measures; and (2) the Agency determines that, although labelling and restricted use classification measures are insufficient to ensure adequate protection of ground water resources, national cancellation would not be necessary if States assume the management of the pesticide in sensitive areas to address effectively the contamination risk. If EPA invokes the SMP approach for a specific chemical, its legal sale and use would be confined to States with an EPA- approved Pesticide SMP. As with Generic SMPs, Pesticide SMPs must address all twelve components as illustrated in Figure 1. However, a Pesticide SMP should contain all the generic information appropriate to the Generic SMP plus all the information specific to the pesticide of concern. If EPA determines that a Pesticide SMP is necessary for a specific pesticide, both the generic and specific aspects of the SMP components will have to be addressed in order for the Pesticide SMP to be deemed adequate. In addition, the Pesticide SMP must demonstrate that a State's programs are in place and operating to protect ground water from pesticide contamination. Pesticide SMPs will be allowed a substantial range of flexibility in the form and manner of their assessment, prevention, monitoring, and response actions, reflecting each State's ground water protection philosophy and differing regulatory approaches. Further, the components may vary in detail in relation to the prospective magnitude of the ground water contamination threat. 1.4 Legal Framework for State Management Plans Two provisions of FIFRA support the use of Pesticide SMPs as a condition of initial registration, continued registration, or legal availability of a pesticide. These are the restricted use provisions under Section 3, and the cancellation provision under Section 6 of the Act. Under Section 3 "other regulatory restrictions" authority, EPA would undertake a rulemaking, with publication in the Federal Register (FR), of the details of the proposed action and opportunity for public comment, to classify one or more pesticides for restricted use. SMPs would be specified as part of the restrictions required. The basis for the action is a determination that the reduction in risk outweighs the decrease in benefits (this may be quantified as an increase in costs) imposed by restrictions. The Section 6 approach is to propose cancellation of the pesticide, unless there is an approved SMP in place. The basis for the action is a determination that, as the pesticide is currently used, its risks outweigh benefits, and cancellation is warranted. However, use under an approved SMP is found to have an acceptable balance of benefits over risks. Page 1-3 ------- "D 0) Figure 1 Sources of Guidance on SMPs o 0) -& to 1. Philosophy and goals 2. Roles and responsibilities 3. Legal authority 4. Resources 5. Assessment and planning 6. Monitoring 7. Prevention 8. Response 9. Enforcement mechanisms 10. Public awareness and participation 11. Information dissemination 12. Records and reporting Guidance for Pesticides and Ground Water State Management Plans Assessment, Prevention, Monitoring, and Response Components of State Management Plans Review, Approval, and Evaluation of State Management Plans Appendix A Appendix B F3N006-1 ------- Chapter 1 In actions under either Section 3 or Section 6, the SMP requirement is referenced on the product label, so that the product can be legally used only in States with an approved SMP. 1.5 Pesticide SMP Regulations EPA plans to publish a rule in the Federal Register declaring that sale and use of certain pesticides are prohibited as of a specific date, except in States that have an EPA- approved Pesticide SMP for that pesticide. This means that a State must have an approved SMP in place by this date if it wants to continue using the pesticide in question. States can submit plans after the deadline; however, the pesticide in question cannot be used in a State between the deadline date, which is specified in the regulation, and final approval of the Pesticide SMP. Further, if the State submits the SMP before the deadline date but does not submit the SMP in time for the 180-day Regional review, the State risks losing use of the pesticide. An overview of the SMP Process is provided in Figure 2. 1.6 SMP Review Approach EPA will be flexible in its review of SMPs, recognizing that different approaches and philosophies can obtain the same environmental results. The Agency realizes that States will need to tailor prevention measures to local ground water vulnerability, current and future use and value of ground water, pesticide use and agronomic characteristics and institutional characteristics. EPA Regions will work closely with States to advise and provide technical assistance in the development of plans and will review advance drafts of Generic and Pesticide SMPs before official drafts are submitted. Further, the review and approval process, as envisioned by the Agency, will be characterized by a high level of interaction between the Regions and States, with Regional Program Offices providing States with significant feedback. 1.7 SMP Implementation and Oversight Approach For Pesticide SMPs, EPA will require SMP Biennial Reports that will be used by EPA Headquarters and Regional staff and State officials to evaluate a State's effectiveness in protecting its ground water resources from pesticide contamination. In addition, the Agency can determine through the evaluation process if the SMP needs to be updated. SMP implementation is meant to improve with expanding knowledge about the ground water resource and increasing technological advances. At the same time, SMPs may also need to remain consistent with changing State ground water priorities and legal authorities. However, if a State's Pesticide SMP fails to afford the proper protection of the ground water resource and the State does not correct these deficiencies, then approval of the SMP may be withdrawn, effectively leading to a prohibition on the legal sale and use of the pesticide in the State. Page 1-5 ------- Chapter 1 Figure 2 SMP Process Regions Advise and Provide Technical Assistance to States During SMP Development State Develops and Implements Voluntary Generic State Management Plan Proposed Rule Published Identifying Proposed Pesticides Final Rule Published (Effective Date for Implementation of Pesticide SMP Established) I State Notifies EPA of Intent to Develop Pesticide SMP * State Develops Pesticide SMP and Submits SMP to Region for Review and Approval I Region Reviews Pesticide SMP i Region Approves Pesticide SMP t State Implements Pesticide SMP by Effective Date I Region Conducts Biennial Evaluation of State's Pesticide SMP J If necessary, Region and State Coordinate Updates to the Pesticide SMP Page 1-6 ------- Chapter 1 1.8 Roadmap of Appendix A Chapter 2 provides a discussion of the review process, with particular emphasis on the roles and responsibilities of participating offices and agencies and on the general review process. Chapter 3 provides a summary of the completeness review process. Chapter 4 provides a summary of the content review process. Chapter 5 provides a discussion of the evaluation process. Chapter 6 discusses the process for updating an SMP. Chapter 7 addresses the process for withdrawing approval of an SMP for an approved SMP. Page 1-7 ------- Chapter 2 Chapter 2 Overview of Review Process for State Management Plans The EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office of Pesticides, Prevention and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) has delegated final approval and disapproval authority for Pesticide SMPs and concurrence authority for Generic SMPs to EPA's Regional Administrators. Generic and Pesticide SMPs are reviewed separately. States submitting Pesticide SMPs that reference their Generic SMPs are required to submit a copy of the Generic SMP, regardless of whether or not the Agency has concurred with the Generic SMP. The Regions will use a two-step process for the review and concurrence of Generic SMPs and for the review and approval of Pesticide SMPs. The first step, the completeness review, is a quick assessment of the submitted SMP to ensure that the State has addressed all 12 components of an SMP. This process is discussed in Chapter 3. The second step, the content review, is a more thorough examination of the SMP to determine whether it adequately addresses each of the 12 components of an SMP and therefore is likely to protect the ground water resource from pesticide contamination. The content review process is discussed in Chapter 4. States are encouraged to submit drafts to the Regional Lead Office on an unofficial basis for review. Figure 3 presents an overview of the Regional review and approval process for Pesticide SMPs. The review of Generic SMPs will follow a similar process. Because Generic SMPs are voluntary, however, EPA will only concur on them, rather than formally approve them. In addition, EPA, with the State, will set the timeframes for the review and concurrence process. Also, EPA does not plan to publish a Federal Register notice announcing its concurrence with Generic SMPs. Such an announcement will follow the approval of Pesticide SMPs. The individual key participants in the review and approval process are identified in Table 1. The responsibilities of these participants are presented in Table 2. In the review process, EPA Headquarter's role is quite limited. The Regions are in the best position to evaluate an SMP within the context of the unique hydrogeologic and institutional characteristics of each State. To ensure some national consistency and to determine which issues need additional clarification in the beginning of program implementation, EPA Headquarters will be more involved in helping Regions in the review of initial Generic and Pesticide SMPs. After program implementation is underway, Headquarters will still be available to provide specific national policy guidance and technical expertise at the Regions' request. The central responsibility for conducting the review of SMPs will be on the Regional Lead Office, which in most cases will be the Pesticides Office. However, the other Regional Program Offices with ground water-related programs will provide the Regional Page 2-1 ------- (Q (D 10 ro Figure 3 Review and Approval Process for Pesticide SMPs Region Works Closely with State In Advising and Providing Technical Assistance for Pesticide SUP (PSMP) Development State Develops PSMP and Submits It to the Regional EF A Administrator i 1 State Addresses Deficiencies Regional Lead Office Determines If PSMP Addresses All 12 Components . M | ^k Components? ' J Region Reviews PSMP to Determine If State has Adequately Addressed All 12 Components? Has State Met Adequacy Criteria for All 12 Components? O Q> 1 ro Regional Administrator Approves PSMP The Review Process has Two Steps: 1) A Short Completeness Review; and 2) A Detailed and Careful Content Review. The Whole Process Should Take No More than 180 Days COMPLETENESS REVIEW 30 DAYS CONTENT REVIEW 150 DAYS ------- Chapter 2 Lead Office with assistance in conducting the review. This assistance will involve providing technical expertise in certain parts of the review. For example, the Regional Ground Water Office will assist in determining the adequacy of the ground water vulnerability assessment and monitoring components, while the Regional Counsel will assist in determining the adequacy of the legal authorities of an SMP. In addition, each office would be able to inform the Regional Lead Office if the SMP contradicts requirements under other EPA programs. The Regional Ground Water Coordinating Committee, or another type of formal mechanism for coordinating Regional ground water programs, will provide active assistance to the Regional Lead Office in the review of SMPs. Table 1. Key Participants in SMP Review and Approval Process Regional Ground Water Coordinating Committee/Regional Program Offices: Regional Ground Water Coordinating Committees are formally established committees that coordinate ground water protection activities across Regional Program Oftfees that may include ground water, drinking water, nonpoint source, pesticides, regional counsel, and other offices, For SMP review and approval, this Committee, or a similar coordinating mechanism, will assist the Regional Lead Office in reviewing SMPs and In ensuring consistency between the SMP and the other State-implemented water programs. Regional Lead Office: The Regional Administrator wilt designate a Regional Lead Office that will have 81© Jead In coordinating the review, approval/concurrence* and evaluation of an SMP. in most cases, the Regional Lead Office will be the Pesticides Office. Regional Administrator: Designates the Regional Lead Office and provides final approval/disapproval for each Pesticide SMP and concurrence/nonconcurrence for each Generic SMP, State Liaison: The Administrators of key State agencies appoint an individual or office as Stale Liaison, Tnis entity coordinates all formal communication on %w SMP development and review processes with the Region and Headquarters, The State Liaison must be Identified in the SMP, Page 2-3 ------- Chapter 2 Table 2. Responsibilities for Review and Approval Process1 STEP RESPONSIBILITY Step 1: State develops and submits SMP to the Regional Administrator (RA). (Generic and Pesticide SMPs) Regional Program Offices: assistance during development. Provide technical State Liaison: Submits SMP to EPA Regional Administrator and Regional Lead Office. Administrators of key State agencies should have concurred with the SMP. EPA Regional Administrator: Transfers submittal to the Regional Lead Office. Instructs Regional Lead Office to assemble a review team that represents Regional Program Offices. Step 2: Region reviews the SMP to determine whether all 12 components have been addressed (completeness review). (Generic and Pesticide SMPs) Regional Lead Office: Conducts completeness review. Notifies the State Liaison either that the SMP is complete and that the Region has begun the content review, or that the SMP is incomplete and the State must address the deficiencies. State Liaison: Resolves with Regional Lead Office any questions that might arise and revises SMP if incomplete. 1 Activities that relate solely to the Generic SMP concurrence process are in italics. Everything else applies to both a Generic and a Pesticide SMP, unless otherwise noted. Page 2-4 ------- Chapter 2 Table 2. Responsibilities for Review and Approval Process (continued) STEP RESPONSIBILITY Step 3: Region conducts content review. (Generic and Pesticide SMP) Regional Lead Office: Develops schedule and time frame (within the time allotted in the regulations) for content review and coordinates review with the Ground Water Coordinating Committee or other offices. Confers with the State on issues of concern raised during the content review. Regional Ground Water Coordinating Committee/ Regional Program Offices: Participate in content review, supply required expertise, and verify that the SMP is not in conflict with other laws or programs. Headquarters: Provides assistance when conflicts arise in the review process. State Liaison: Confers with Regional Lead Office to discuss changes necessary for Regional approval/ concurrence of the SMP. Provides information as necessary to assist Region. Regional Administrator: Approves/concurs or disapproves/non-concurs on SMP based on recommendation from the Regional Lead Office. Page 2-5 ------- Chapter 2 Table 2. Responsibilities for Review and Approval Process (continued) RESPONSIBILITY Step 4: If the Regional Administrator approves the Pesticide SMP, the Regional Administrator sends a Notice of Availability and Approval to the Federal Register and a letter of notification to all key State administrators who signed the SMP.2 The Regional Lead Office notifies the State Liaison of the Regional Administrator's decision. If the RA does not approve the Pesticide SMP, a letter of notification is sent to the key State administrators. If the Pesticide SMP is not approved, the State has the opportunity to revise and re- submit the SMP. (Pesticide SMP) The Regional Administrator's concurrence/nonconcurrence on the Generic SMP is not submitted to the Federal Register. Rather, the Regional Administrator will notify the Slafe Liaison and Key State Administrators in writing that EPA either concurs or nonconcurs with the Plan. If the RA nonconcurs with the Plan, the State has the opportunity to revise and re-submit the Generic SMP. (Generic SMP) Regional Administrator: Notifies State of Region's decision. For Pesticide SMP only, submits Notice of Availability and Approval to the Federal Register. Regional Lead Office: decision. Notifies State Liaison of Region's Regional Administrator: Notifies key State agencies of concurrence/nonconcurrence or approval/disapproval. 2 Note: EPA is currently exploring the possibility of a federal Notice of Availability and Comment for specific Pesticide SMPs in addition to a State public participation process. Page 2-6 ------- Chapter 3 Chapter 3 Review of State Management Plans for Completeness This chapter describes the completeness review, including its participants, time frame, and process. The completeness review is a quick assessment of the SMP to determine whether the SMP addresses all of the necessary 12 components. It is the first phase of the two-phase - completeness and content - review process. States are encouraged to submit drafts to the Regional Lead Office on an unofficial basis for informal review. 3.1 Who Does the Completeness Review? The Regional Lead Office will review both Generic and Pesticide SMPs for completeness. 3.2 What is the Time Frame of the Completeness Review? The Region will review Pesticide SMPs for completeness in 30 calendar days from the date the State submits the SMP. For Generic SMPs, the Region and State will need to set their own time frame on the completeness review. 3.3 What Are the Procedures for the Completeness Review? The Regional Lead Office will perform a quick assessment of the Plan to determine whether it includes a discussion of ajl 12 program components. If the Regional Lead Office determines that the SMP addresses all components, it will notify the State Liaison that all 12 components are addressed and that the Region will begin the content review. If, on the other hand, the Regional Lead Office determines that the SMP does not address all 12 components, the Regional Lead Office will request that the State Liaison submit the missing components. The State Liaison then will submit an official copy of the revised SMP to the Regional Administrator and to the Regional Lead Office (to expedite the Regional review). Once the State addresses the missing components and the SMP is complete, the content review may proceed. Figure 4 illustrates the completeness review process. Page 3-1 ------- (0 CD ro Figure 4 Regional Completeness Review Process for SMPs o I CO Submits SMPto Regional Administrator Regions! Lead Office Determine* If SMP Addresses all 12 Components Does SMP Address all 12 Components? No State Addresses Deficiencies SMP Review Is Halted Until State Addresses Deficiencies Regional Administrator Notifies State that Content Review has begun Content Review Process The Completeness Review Ensures that all Elements of the SMP are Addressed 30 DAYS FOR PESTICIDE SMPs ------- Chapter 4 Chapter 4 Review of State Management Plans for Content The Region will review both Generic and Pesticide SMPs to determine whether the SMP establishes a plan of action that will result in meeting FIFRA's environmental goal. As discussed in the Pesticides and Ground Water Strategy, the environmental goal is to prevent contamination of ground water resources that presents adverse effects to human health and the environment. In the second stage of the review process, the content review, the Region will evaluate the description of each of the 12 SMP components to determine whether these components together will adequately meet the environmental goal. As part of this review process, the Region will use the adequacy criteria outlined in the Guidance for Pesticides and Ground Water State Management Plans to evaluate the 12 components. However, EPA recognizes that the extent to which each component is discussed and the level and stringency of pesticide management depends on a number of factors, including the State's ground water protection philosophy, ground water vulnerability, degree of pesticide use, agronomic practices, and the uses and value of ground water in the State. Therefore, EPA will be flexible in its review of SMPs, accepting that different approaches and philosophies can attain the same general environmental goal. The content review process for a Pesticide SMP is presented in Figure 5. Chapter 4 includes the following sections: • Section 4.1 describes who is involved in the content review; • Section 4.2 discusses the time frame of the content review; • Section 4.3 outlines the content review process; and • Section 4.4 describes the process for ensuring that Pesticide SMPs are consistent with USDA Conservation Compliance Plans in each State. 4.1 Who Does the Content Review? The Regional Lead Office, designated by the Regional Administrator, will coordinate the Regional review of both the Generic and Pesticide SMPs. The Regional Lead Office will have the responsibility for developing a schedule for the review, integrating comments of the Regional Program Offices involved in the review, and recommending to the Regional Administrator whether to approve or disapprove the Pesticide SMP, or concur or nonconcur on the Generic SMP. Page 4-1 ------- Figure 5 Regional Content Review and Approval Process for SMPs Ragtonal Lead Office Initiate* Content RWNW by* 1) Notifying th* State Ualeon Program Offlo* tNrt the Generic SMP (GSMP) or ttw PMtteMo SMP (PSMP) I* Complete and that the Content Review to Underway; and 2) Aeaurlng Appropriate Participation In Ravlaw by other Ground Water Program* Has the State mat Adequacy Criteria tor each SMP Component? Does the State Agra* to Address Deficiencies? GSMP does not receive concurrence. or PSMP la not Approved; Sale and Use of the Pesticide In Question la Prohibited RA Concurs on GSMP. or RA Approve* PSMP and Publish** Notice of Approval and Availability In FR;U*eof Pecttelde Continues under the Terms of the PSMP State Deficiencies The Content Review is an Evaluation of the Adequacy of the PSMP to Meet the Environmental Goal 150 DAYS FOR PESTICIDE SMPs ------- Chapter 4 The Regional Program Offices, which include the Offices of Pesticides, Ground Water, Drinking Water, and Regional Counsel, will assist the Regional Lead Office in the content review by providing expertise as necessary and ensuring consistency between the SMP and other State-implemented water programs. 4.2 What Is the Time Frame for the Content Review? For Pesticide SMPs, the Region will perform both the completeness and content review of a Pesticide SMP within 180 calendar days of receiving the Pesticide SMP from the State. As discussed in Chapter 3, the Region will undertake the completeness review first and must conclude this review within 30 calendar days of receiving the SMP. This allows the Region a minimum of 150 calendar days to determine the adequacy of the SMP. Should the Region conclude the completeness review earlier than 30 calendar days, the Region may use the remaining days in addition to the 150 calendar days to determine the adequacy of the SMP. For Generic SMPs, the Region and the State will need to set a time frame for the content review. 4.3 What Are the Procedures for the Content Review? After notifying the State Liaison that the SMP is complete, the Region will begin its review of the SMP components to determine if the adequacy criteria are met for each component. The Regional Ground Water Coordinating Committee and the Regional Program Offices will provide expertise and assistance as necessary during the content review process. After the content review, the Regional Administrator will decide whether to approve/concur on the Pesticide or Generic SMP. If the Regional review concludes that the Pesticide SMP is adequate, the Regional Administrator will send a letter notifying the State Liaison and the administrators of the key State agencies. If the Regional review concludes that the SMP is inadequate, the Regional Lead Office will work with the State Liaison to address those areas that are of concern to the Region. If the Region and State fail to reach a consensus on a Pesticide SMP, the Regional Administrator will send a letter of notification to the State Liaison and the administrators of the key State agencies indicating that EPA will not approve the State's Plan. Without approval by the "SMP effective date," pesticide sale and use will be prohibited in the State. The State will reserve the option to revise and re-submit the Plan. If the Regional review concludes that the Generic SMP is adequate, the Regional Administrator will notify the State Liaison and all key State Administrators who signed the SMP that EPA concurs with the submitted Plan. If, however, the Regional review concludes that the Generic SMP is inadequate, the Regional Lead Office will work with the State Liaison to address those areas that are of concern to the Region. If, after negotiation, the Region and State do not reach a consensus on the Generic SMP, the Regional Administrator will not concur with the Generic SMP. Page 4-3 ------- Chapter 4 4.4 Consistency with Conservation Compliance Plans (Pesticide SMPs only) In developing Pesticides State Management Plans, States should work with the USDA Soil Conservation Service State office to ensure that the management measures in USDA Conservation Compliance Plans (CCPs) and Pesticide SMPs are coordinated closely. CCPs are required under the Food and Security Act of 1985 for farms with highly erodible land in order to remain eligible for USDA benefits. Because both programs may manage pesticides differently in the same geographical areas, there is some potential for conflicting pesticide management measures. For example, the Pesticide SMP may include prohibitions on use during certain times of the year. A CCP may not have these restrictions on pesticide use but may have other restrictions that the Pesticide SMP does not have in that same geographical area. States must acknowledge in Pesticide SMPs that they have worked with the Soil Conservation Service and that pesticides measures complement each other or do not conflict. If State Agencies and the USDA Soil Conservation Service State office could not reach an agreement on management measures to be applied to a specific area, the State should explain this in its SMP. In making a determination regarding whether management measures have been coordinated between the two programs, EPA will provide the USDA Soil Conservation Service with an opportunity to elevate disputes regarding Pesticide SMP management measures to the EPA Administrator. Page 4-4 ------- Chapter 5 Chapter 5 Evaluation of State Management Plan Implementation Periodic evaluations of the implementation status of Generic and Pesticide SMPs should provide a basis for measuring the State's progress toward protection of ground water resources from pesticide contamination. In general, the evaluations serve the following functions: • Provide an assessment of the status of implementation efforts; • Determine the environmental effectiveness and the level of ground water protection provided by an implemented Pesticide SMP; and • Ensure national consistency. This chapter includes the following sections: • Section 5.1 provides an overview of the two evaluation components of the Pesticide SMP Biennial Report: (1) programmatic evaluation and (2) environmental evaluation; • Section 5.2 describes in detail the programmatic evaluation component for Pesticide SMPs; • Section 5.3 describes in detail the environmental evaluation component for Pesticide SMPs; • Section 5.4 describes the Pesticide SMP Biennial Report evaluation process; • Section 5.5 discusses the role and authorities of participants in the evaluation process; • Section 5.6 provides a summary of the potential outcomes of the evaluation process; and • Section 5.7 discusses submitting monitoring data to EPA's Pesticides and Ground Water Database. 5.1 Pesticide SMP Biennial Report The Pesticide SMP Biennial Report will be required for Pesticide SMPs only. Reoortino oroaress for the voluntary Generic SMPs will be performed through the FIFRA Page 5-1 ------- Chapter 5 grant process. SMP Biennial reports will be used by EPA Headquarters and Regional personnel and State officials to evaluate a State's effectiveness in protecting its ground water resources from pesticide contamination. Information provided for the "normal" FIFRA, CWA, and NPS reporting may be included in the SMP Biennial Report. The report consists of the following two components: • Programmatic Evaluation. This component of the Pesticide SMP Biennial Report is designed to determine whether a State is implementing all components of its SMP. The programmatic evaluation will compare the actual implementation activities with the activities described in an EPA-approved Pesticide SMP. • Environmental Evaluation. This component of the Pesticide SMP Biennial Report is designed to assess an SMP's effectiveness in preventing adverse effects to human health and the environment from pesticide contamination of ground water. An environmental evaluation will use a number of measures and indicators (e.g., ground water sampling, ground water and soil monitoring, pesticide use statistics, and environmental indicators) to determine if the prevention measures in an SMP are protecting the ground water resource adequately.* EPA realizes that it will take time for the measures to have an environmental impact and that the direct measurement of environmental progress may not be obtainable in the first years of SMP implementation. 5.2 Pesticide SMP Biennial Report - Programmatic Evaluation In preparing the programmatic evaluation component of the Pesticide SMP Biennial Report, a State should address each component of the SMP individually. A State should discuss the progress it has made in implementing each component in accordance with the adequacy criteria outlined in the SMP Guidance. In addition, the following information should be included in the State's SMP Biennial Report: • Demonstration that all 12 components are fully operational to protect ground water, and a discussion of the accomplishments and progress for each of the 12 components of an SMP; • Identification of any special issues (e.g., change in resources to implement the SMP, change in legal authority) within the State regarding the SMP; • Description of projected available resources for the next two years, with a comparison to the resources necessary to carry out the Plan; • Description of any proposed modifications or updates to the SMP (See Chapter 6 for further information on updating SMPs); Page 5-2 ------- Chapter 5 • Data on the number of inspections performed to determine compliance with provisions of the SMP, completed enforcement actions related to noncompliance, and a summary of findings; and • Description of response actions taken for detections of the specific pesticide. In addition, a State may choose to highlight particular deficiencies of the SMP that need to be addressed through modification or amendment of the SMP. The State may also discuss changes to the SMP that are now possible as a result of an increased understanding of the ground water resource and pesticide usage. (See Chapter 6 for a discussion of how SMPs are updated.) 5.3 Pesticide SMP Biennial Report - Environmental Evaluation States and EPA will use the environmental evaluation component of the Pesticide SMP Biennial Report to determine if SMPs are successfully protecting ground water from pesticide contamination. EPA recognizes that direct measurement of progress in environmental protection may not be obtainable in the first few years of SMP implementation. However, through evaluation of pesticide usage data, ground water monitoring results, and other environmental indicators, EPA hopes to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of Pesticide SMPs. In preparing the environmental component of the SMP Biennial Report, a State should demonstrate that a Pesticide SMP is preventing the leaching of pesticides into the ground water. The SMP Biennial Report should include the following: • Results and analyses from ground water sampling and monitoring as well as a summary of significant finds which would prompt a State to increase its degree of oversight of use of the pesticide or modify its SMP; and • An assessment of pesticide usage and whether use of the specific pesticide has increased, decreased, or remained essentially the same over the past two years. (A change in usage, such as expansion to new crops or a decline in pesticide use, might change the needs of the SMP in the State). Because each Pesticide SMP will be evaluated for its environmental effectiveness, a State should be certain to address specifically each pesticide in its SMP Biennial Report. 5.4 Pesticide SMP Biennial Report Evaluation Process States will submit the Pesticide SMP Biennial Reports for each of their Pesticide SMPs to the Regional Lead Office at the same time as End-of-Year Reports are due, Page 5-3 ------- Chapter 5 although on alternative years. If a State has more than one approved Pesticide SMP, then the SMP evaluation should include programmatic and environmental evaluations addressing each approved Pesticide SMP. Figure 6 provides an overview of the evaluation process for Pesticide SMPs, which includes the following steps: Step 1. The State submits SMP Biennial Report. The State may also develop and submit a SMP Update Report (if applicable) for EPA review (see Chapter 6). Step 2. Following the submission of a State's SMP Biennial Report, the Regional Lead Office will organize and facilitate the evaluation with the Ground Water Coordinating Committee and other Regional Program Offices. While the role of the other Regional Program Offices and the Ground Water Coordinating Committee in the evaluation process will vary from Region to Region, in general, the other Regional Program Offices will assist the Regional Lead Office by evaluating portions or components of the SMP Biennial fteport. The Regional Lead Office, in cooperation and conjunction with the Ground Water Coordinating Committee and/or the other Regional Program Offices, will determine whether the State is implementing and enforcing the SMP. Following this determination, the Regional Lead Office will advise the Regional Administrator on the evaluation. Step 3. In some cases, the Regional Lead Office may ask the State Liaison to provide additional information on the implementation or effectiveness of an SMP. Step 4. The Regional Administrator provides a written notification to the State Administrators on the outcome of the evaluation. If failure to implement the Pesticide SMP is a result of a lack of consistency of the SMP with new State priorities, or if the provisions of the Pesticide SMP are not adequately protecting ground water, the State may consider updating or amending the plan (see Chapter 6 for a discussion of how SMPs are updated). 5.5 Roles and Responsibilities for Evaluating Pesticide SMPs State Liaisons are responsible for preparing and submitting the Pesticide SMP Biennial Report. The participating State agencies may want to use State and federal reports for information for the SMP Biennial Report. The State Liaison does not have to be the same State Liaison who coordinated with the Region on SMP concurrence or approval. The State Liaison should represent one of the key State agencies, a committee in charge of coordinating SMP activities, or other relevant State organization. The State Liaison must obtain concurrence from the administrators of the key State agencies that play a role in implementing the SMP. During the review, the Regional Lead Office may ask the State Liaison for additional information on the status and effectiveness of SMP implementation. Page 5-4 ------- Chapter 5 Figure 6 Evaluation of Pesticide SMPs Slat* Submit* Bknnlal Report to the Regional Lead Office Regional Lead Office Organizes and Conduct* the Evaluation In Cooperation with Other Offices lath* State Satisfactorily Implementing the Pesticide SMP(PSMP)? State Continues Use of Pesticide Under Terms of the PSMP State Continues Use of Pesticide Under Terms of the PSMP Withdrawal Process (See Chapter 7) Page 5-5 ------- Chapter 5 In addition to the reporting requirements for the Pesticide SMP Biennial Report, the State Liaison must immediately inform the Regional Lead Office of any significant pesticide contamination detections (e.g., pesticide detections that include, but are not limited to those that prompt a State to increase its degree of oversight of use of the pesticide or modify its Pesticide SMP), progress on the investigation of and response to these finds (e.g., information concerning the source of contamination and response), and any inability of State agencies to implement aspects of the plan (e.g., loss of financial resources). The Regional Lead Office may also request additional information on programmatic activities and how States are using grants for SMPs as part of their normal programmatic evaluation. The Regional Lead Office is responsible for organizing and conducting the evaluation. Its responsibilities include the following: • Organizing and scheduling the evaluation process with the Regional Ground Water Coordinating Committee and/or other Regional Program Offices; • Communicating with the State, as appropriate, to facilitate the evaluation process; • Drafting the final determination of an SMP evaluation as well as writing a brief summary of the evaluation; • Notifying the State Liaison on the outcome of the evaluation; and • If necessary, conducting joint, on-site reviews with each State as a follow up to the Biennial Report evaluation in conjunction with the Regional Ground Water Coordinating Committee and other offices. The Regional Administrator will provide a written notification to the State Administrators on the outcome of the evaluation. Regional Ground Water Coordinating Committee/Regional Program Offices will assist in evaluating the progress the State has made in implementing the SMPs. They will work with the Regional Lead Office in reviewing progress in implementing the components of an SMP for the programmatic evaluation and will provide technical expertise in the environmental evaluation. For example, the Regional Ground Water Protection Branch might assist the Regional Lead Office in reviewing and evaluating the ground water vulnerability and monitoring data provided by the State as part of the environmental evaluation. Program offices also will ensure that implementation of SMPs and other State-implemented programs are consistent and do not duplicate efforts. In addition, the other program offices may decide to conduct joint, on-site reviews with the Regional Lead Office as a follow-up to the SMP Biennial Report evaluation. Page 5-6 ------- Chapter 5 EPA Headquarters can provide advice and guidance to the Regions as appropriate in the evaluation process. Headquarters will receive summaries of the Regions' evaluations in order to assess periodically the national effectiveness of the SMP approach. Headquarters may request full SMP Biennial Reports to review when there is a major national consistency concern. 5.6 Summary of Evaluation Outcomes The outcomes of the evaluations for Generic SMPs and Pesticide SMPs are substantially different. For Generic SMPs, States and Regions identify, through the grant application and negotiation process, aspects of the SMP that will be implemented using grant funds. Progress on implementing these aspects of Generic SMPs are evaluated through the FIFRA grant year-end reporting process. If the State fails to carry out activities agreed upon, then additional grants given to the State for Generic SMP activities may be withheld. If failure to comply is a result of a lack of consistency of the SMP with new State ground water priorities, the State and EPA should discuss updating or amending the State's plan. (See Chapter 6 for Updating SMPs.) The following is a summary of the potential outcomes of the Pesticide SMP evaluation process: • Pesticide SMP is implemented and is successfully protecting the around water resource. If a State's Pesticide SMP is both implemented and is preventing contamination that presents adverse effects, then the State may continue to manage the pesticide according to the requirements of the Pesticide SMP. • Pesticide SMP is not implemented. If a State fails to implement a Pesticide SMP, then the State should consult with the Regional Lead Office about carrying out the activities in a manner consistent with the approved Pesticide SMP. If the State fails to carry out the activities, then approval will be withdrawn, effectively leading to prohibiting the legal sale and use of the pesticide in the State. (See Chapter 7 for the Withdrawal of Approval of SMPs.) Grants given to the State for Pesticide SMP activities may be withheld. If failure to comply is a result of a lack of consistency of the Pesticide SMP with new State ground water priorities, then the State and EPA should discuss the State's updating or amending the plan (see Chapter 6 for a discussion on how SMPs are updated). • Pesticide SMP is implemented, but is not adequately protecting the ground water resource. If an implemented Pesticide SMP fails to prevent contamination that will result in adverse effects over time, then the State should update the SMP (see Chapter 6 for Updating SMPs). The updated Pesticide SMP should include more stringent preventive actions (e.g., prohibitions of use in a geographic area Page 5-7 ------- Chapter 5 where contamination is found) to protect the ground water from pesticide contamination. If the State fails to update the Pesticide SMP and carry out the revised activities, then approval of the Pesticide SMP will be withdrawn (see Chapter 7 for a discussion on the withdrawal of SMPs), effectively prohibiting legal sale and use of the pesticide in the State. Additional grant funding under the Cooperative Agreement and/or Clean Water Act Section 106 (ground water) may also be withheld. 5.7 Submittal of Monitoring Data to the EPA Pesticides in Ground Water Data Base EPA strongly encourages States to submit a final or interim report of their monitoring data to EPA Headquarters' Pesticides in Ground Water Data Base (PGWDB) during their Biennial Evaluation or at any other time. This EPA data base is a compilation of monitoring studies from States, industries, universities and other organizations. EPA Headquarters has recently published an updated national summary report of the data base and will publish other reports in the future. States wishing to submit monitoring data should provide a hard copy of a final or interim report and the sample and well data in electronic format. PGWDB data elements are listed below. Electronic media should be accompanied by a description that includes hardware compatibility (IBM, Apple, etc.), operating system (DOS, UNIX, OS2), format identification (ASCII or software package name), and a data dictionary. Any information provided to EPA Headquarters should also be provided (in hard copy) to the appropriate EPA Regional office. Anyone wishing to provide comments or data may do so by contacting Constance A. Haaser, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division (H75O7C), 401 M Street, S.W., Washington D.C. 20460. (703) 305-5455 (tel) and (703) 305-6309 (fax). Page 5-8 ------- Chapter 5 Figure 7 Data Elements for the Pesticides in Ground Water Data Base Well File Study Number Study Number(s) Study Number Study Title Unique Well Number1 Unique Well Number1 Sponsoring Agency(ies) State and County FIPS Codes2 Pesticide Project Officer(s) (PO) Latitude and Longitude Concentration (ug/L) PO Address(es) Depth to Water Table (m) Limit of Detection (ug/L) PO Tetephone(s) Well Depth (m) Sample Date USEPA Region Depth to Top and Bottom of Screen Interval (m) Analytical Method8 Starting and Ending Dates Well Type4 Origin of Contamination9 Publication Date Abstract Well Log and Other Information5 Altitude6 Page 5-9 ------- Chapter 5 Figure 7 (continued) Footnotes 1. This is a unique identifier assigned to each well in the well file. Many States have assigned a unique identifier to wells sampled. In these cases, the number was retained, and used in the PGWDB as that well's unique well number. 2. The Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) alphabetic or numeric codes for States (example Ml is the alphabetic code for Michigan, 26 in the numeric code for Michigan). County codes are three digit numeric codes. 3. Coordinate representations that indicate a location on the surface of the earth using the equator (latitude) and the Prime Meridian (longitude) as origin. Coordinates are measured in degrees, minutes, and seconds with an indicator of north or south, and east or west. 4. Wells have been classified as follows: Drinking water public community — a system of piped drinking water that either has at least 15 service connections or serves at least 25 permanent residents; Drinking water public non-community — wells serving public facilities such as fire stations, schools, or libraries; Drinking water private — privately owned wells serving a residence or farm; Non-drinking water monitoring — wells installed specifically for monitoring ground water; and Non-drinking water other — wells used for irrigation, industrial application, etc. 5. This field will allow storage of limited well log or other information about the well, such as construction details. 6. The vertical distance from the National Reference Datum to the land surface or other measuring point in meters. 7. Pesticides are tracked by their Chemical Abstracts System (CAS) number. There is also a cross-reference file that contains all pesticide synonyms and other OPP reference numbers. Any chemical that is currently or has ever been registered as a pesticide by the USEPA, OPP is eligible to be included in the PGWDB. Some chemicals might be more commonly associated with industrial processes; however, if these chemicals are now or were previously registered and used as pesticides, monitoring results will be included in the data base. 8. A short name, reference, or description of the analytical method which was used. This field is not intended to hold the entire method. 9. An origin of contamination is listed for each analysis performed as follows: NFU — Known or suspected normal field use PS — Known or suspected point source LINK — Unknown source of contamination. Page 5-10 ------- Chapter 6 Chapter 6 Updating State Management Plans Pesticide State Management Plans should be drafted so that they are self-adjusting and should include a range of possible contingency plans that would be triggered by pesticide detections in ground water, new information about pesticide usage patterns, and ground water vulnerability, use, and value. Because plans will include a full menu of options, the need for updating plans will probably not be a common event. Implementation of SMPs should, however, improve with expanding knowledge, increasing technological advances, and greater understanding of ground water resources. If the menu of options in the SMP does not meet the State's ground water or other needs, then States should consider updating their Generic and Pesticide SMPs. The following are some situations in which States may need to update plans: • If the SMP evaluation determines that the provisions in a State's SMP do not adequately protect the ground water resource from pesticide contamination; • If improved ground water vulnerability assessments or monitoring methods, prevention technologies, or information concerning the risk posed by a pesticide become available; • If a State, through experience, finds more effective ways to implement the SMP (e.g., disseminate information); or • If other changes occur within a State, such as changes in roles and responsibilities, legal and enforcement frameworks, crop patterns, and/or crop production systems and technologies. Chapter 6 includes the following sections: • Section 6.1 discusses the Update Report associated with the updating process; • Section 6.2 provides a summary of the SMP update process; and • Section 6.3 delineates the roles and responsibilities of the participants in the updating process. Page 6-1 ------- Chapter 6 6.1 The SNIP Update If a State is aware that an update is needed, then that update can be submitted as part of the SMP Biennial Report, at any other time, or, if the Regional Lead Office determines through the evaluation process, or at other times that an SMP needs to be updated, then the Regional Administrator can initiate the updating process by requesting that a State submit an SMP Update Report. In every case, the Update Report must include: • A description of the proposed changes; • An explanation of why the changes are necessary; • An analysis of the impact the changes will have on the other components of the SMP, the implementation of the SMP, and the protection of the resource; • If changes will affect the pesticide user, a description of how they will be alerted to the changes in the SMP; • If changes are significant, a description of how the State received public input on changes to the SMP; and • Concurrences by all Administrators of the key State agencies. Changes or updates to both Generic and Pesticide SMPs must be concurred or approved by the Regional Administrator. 6.2 The SMP Updating Process The State should develop and submit an SMP Update Report to the Region if the Region or the State determines that the SMP requires updating. If the changes to the Pesticide SMP are significant, then the Region publishes a Federal Register Notice of Availability indicating that the State's Pesticide SMP has been updated and describing the changes made. An overview of the SMP update process for Pesticide SMPs is provided in Figure 8. 6.3 Roles and Responsibilities for Updating SMPs The State Liaison is responsible for preparing and submitting SMP updates when they are necessary. When the Regional Lead Office needs further clarification on the update, the State Liaison should be prepared to provide additional information. In addition, the State Liaison will need to respond to the Regional Lead Office if it is determined that the Update Report does not adequately address the deficiencies. Page 6-2 ------- Chapter 6 Figure 8 Update Process for Pesticide SMPs Region or State Determines that Pesticide SMP (PSMP) Requires Updating State Develops and Submits PSMP Update Report Region Assesses Adequacy of PSMP Update Report State Addresses Deficiencies RA Approves PSMP Update Report and Publishes FR Notice of Availability Page 6-3 ------- Chapter 6 The Regional Lead Office has lead responsibility for organizing and conducting the assessment of the update with the assistance of the Regional Ground Water Coordinating Committee and other program offices. Its responsibilities include: • Notifying EPA Headquarters of significant updates to SMPs; • Organizing and scheduling the review of an update with the Regional Ground Water Coordinating Committee and/or the other Regional Program Offices; • Organizing contact with the State Liaison to facilitate the assessment process; • Advising the Regional Administrator on what the final determination of an updated SMP review should be; and • If changes are significant, organizing the publication of a Notice of Availability for an updated SMP in the Federal Register (for a Pesticide SMP). The Regional Administrator will provide the final determination on an SMP update. The Regional Administrator is responsible for providing a written response to the Administrators of key State agencies on the outcome of the review of the SMP update. In addition, the Regional Administrator publishes a Federal Register notice indicating that a State's Pesticide SMP has been updated (if the changes to the Pesticide SMP are significant). The Regional Ground Water Coordinating Committee/Regional Program Offices will assist in evaluating the proposed changes to a State's SMP. EPA Headquarters will not be directly involved in the updating process for SMPs. However, EPA Headquarters can provide advice and guidance to the Regions, as appropriate. Page 6-4 ------- Chapter 7 Chapter 7 Withdrawal of Approval for a Pesticide State Management Plan If a Pesticide State Management Plan fails to meet the goal of the Pesticides and Ground Water Strategy, then either the plan may need to be updated (see Chapter 6) or the State must demonstrate that the SMP is being satisfactorily implemented. Withdrawal of approval of an SMP is a phased process, and States will have ample opportunities to respond to the Regions' requests and concerns to update or sufficiently implement the SMP. Withdrawal of approval can occur when: • The State fails to demonstrate that it is satisfactorily implementing the SMP; • The State's SMP is not preventing adverse effects from pesticide contamination of ground water; or • The State fails to address deficiencies identified by the SMP Evaluation through updating the SMP and/or improving implementation of the SMP. 7.1 The Withdrawal Process Before the withdrawal process commences, the State will have the opportunity to respond to these deficiencies in its Pesticide SMPs through the SMP updating process or by providing satisfactory assurances that implementation deficiencies will be corrected. The Regional Lead Office will work closely with individual State agencies or the State Liaison to assist the State in updating the plan or in addressing deficiencies or gaps in protection. In the event that deficiencies and gaps are not addressed, then the Regional Lead Office should notify the State Liaison that the Region may consider withdrawing the Pesticide SMP. Then, if the State does not respond to the Region's concerns, the Regional Administrator will send a formal letter to the State Administrators initiating the withdrawal of the Pesticide SMP. The notice will include: • A statement concerning the potential withdrawal of the SMP; • A listing of the deficiencies of the SMP or a description of the failure of the Pesticide SMP to protect ground water; • A brief summary of the events that led to the withdrawal notice (e.g., failure to respond to SMP's deficiencies in the Biennial Report, failure to update the SMP adequately); and Page 7-1 ------- Chapter 7 • A time frame in which the State can respond to the deficiencies to stop the withdrawal process (e.g., time frames for submitting an SMP Update Report for improving implementation of the plan). The State must respond in writing to the notice with a commitment to address the deficiencies in the SMP itself or in SMP implementation. If the SMP itself is deficient, the State Liaison should submit an SMP Update Report and work with the Region to fulfill the requirements of the updating process (See Chapter 6 for a complete discussion of the updating process). If the Pesticide SMP has not been properly implemented by the State, the State must provide satisfactory assurances that implementation deficiencies will be corrected. If the State does not respond, the Regional Administrator will send a formal letter to the State Administrators indicating that EPA is publishing a Federal Register Notice to announce withdrawal of the Pesticide SMP. Then, the Region will publish a Notice of Withdrawal in the Federal Register and prohibit the sale and use of the pesticide in the State. Figure 9 outlines the withdrawal process for Pesticide SMPs. States may appeal the initiation of the withdrawal to the Regional Administrator. However, if the pesticide poses a high risk to human health or the environment, sale and use of the pesticide may be prohibited until EPA and the State reach an agreement on how to address the SMP's deficiencies. If a State appeals the withdrawal, the State must initiate a request to meet with the Regional Administrator within 60 calendar days from the time the EPA Regional Administrator sends the letter initiating withdrawal. 7.2 Roles and Responsibilities for Withdrawing Pesticide SMP Approval State Liaisons are responsible for working with the Regional Lead Office and the State Administrators to correct deficiencies and coordinating responses to the Regional Administrator's letter initiating withdrawal. The Regional Lead Office has the lead responsibility for working with the State to correct deficiencies and, if necessary, conducting the withdrawal process. Its responsibilities include: • Working with the State Liaison in attempting to address deficiencies to prevent raising issues to higher management levels and withdrawing the plan; • Assisting the Regional Administrator in initiating and completing the withdrawal process, and working further with the State Liaison in addressing deficiencies; Page 7-2 ------- Chapter 7 Figure 9 Withdrawal Process for Pesticide SMPs Regional Lead Office Notifies the State Liaison that the Region may consider Withdrawing the Pesticide SMP (PSMP) Region and State work to Address Deficiencies; Use of Pesticide In Question Continues Under Terms of the PSMP NO RA Sends a Formal Letter to the State Administrators Initiating the Withdrawal of the PSMP Region Publishes a Notice of Withdrawal In the FR; Sato and Use of Pesticide In Question is Prohibited ' Region and State work to Address Deficiencies; Use of Pesticide In Question Continues Under Terms of the PSMP Page 7-3 ------- Chapter 7 • Coordinating with and informing the Regional Ground Water Coordinating Committee and/or the other Regional Program Offices and EPA Headquarters about possible withdrawal actions; and • Organizing the publication of the Notice of Withdrawal in the Federal Register (for a Pesticide SMP). The Regional Administrator will determine whether a Pesticide SMP should be withdrawn. If the SMP is to be withdrawn, he/she will send a letter initiating withdrawal and a letter of the final determination to withdraw the pesticide to the State Administrators. The Regional Administrator is responsible for publishing the Notice of Withdrawal in the Federal Register. As a result, the sale and use of the pesticide in the State is prohibited (Pesticide SMP). The Regional Ground Water Coordinating Committee/Other Regional Program Offices will assist the Regional Lead Office in deciding if the SMP should be withdrawn and, if necessary, in withdrawing the plan. EPA Headquarters will not be directly involved in the withdrawal process for SMPs. However, Headquarters can provide advice and guidance to the Regions, as appropriate. Page 7-4 ------- |